Rachel Maddow has this theory...........

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I didn't say he did.

Being quite impossible it's a non issue.

He deported people at a faster rate than Trump.




How's that wall coming?

You lose.

 

[Marchimedes]

At its core conservativism is reactionary –

Over the years this conservative has had plenty of ideas.

But to your point when some idiot stops the pipelines I went then finished. When some azzhole opens the borders wide I want them shut. When some perv wants porn in public school elementary libraries you're damn straight I'm gonna react. But then if there weren't these stupid ideas in the first place there wouldn't be this reaction. Savvy?

fearful of positive, beneficial change,

diversity, and inclusion.

Conservatives cannot combat and oppose the change, diversity, and inclusion they fear in a democracy;

Sure we can. To wit:

Say I have a small airline with 10 old, white pilots. One is gonna retire. I get a total of two applicants to be my next pilot. A fat Alabama redneck who learned to fly on his Daddy's crop duster and a black, gay, trans, Satan-worshipping female who has 10,000 hours flying commercial jets in Kenya.

I'm hiring the hungry one.

Diversity, equity and inclusion for the sake of diversity, equity and inclusion will lead to a lot of dead airline passengers.

only a strong, authoritarian leader can preserve white hegemony and return the country to an idealized past that never actually existed.

I'm quite sure that the 0.01% of Americans that are old school rascists agree with you.

Your turn.

 

[BackAgain]

.......that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Boiled down to its essence it is that Trump is not the essential element animating Trumpery. Trumpery being defined (by me) as the rise of nativism, the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader, challenging the prior constitutional order, an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills, and sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.

She recently did a town hall style meeting with Chris Hayes during which he asked her why it is, in her opinion, that some authoritarian figures in history fail to gain support while others succeed. IOW, can success or failure of these figures be predicted. Her answer was the country, any country, has to be previously receptive to the message being projected. That no one can start from ground zero and orchestrate an authoritarian movement unless citizens in the country, some of them at least, are ready for it.

Probably the best example of this being Germany before Hitler (I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler). The seeds for being receptive to fascism were planted by the onerous terms Germany was forced to submit to after WW I.

So what was happening here that allowed for the sublimated acceptance of, if not desire for, autocracy to bubble to the surface? Technological advances bringing about economic instability? The "browning" of the country causing anxiety among certain factions?

Or is Rachel's theory just wrong?

Layering your attempt to create or define a term onto Madcow’s empty theorizing is the same as adding 0 + 0.

 

[OKTexas]

.......that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Boiled down to its essence it is that Trump is not the essential element animating Trumpery. Trumpery being defined (by me) as the rise of nativism, the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader, challenging the prior constitutional order, an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills, and sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.

She recently did a town hall style meeting with Chris Hayes during which he asked her why it is, in her opinion, that some authoritarian figures in history fail to gain support while others succeed. IOW, can success or failure of these figures be predicted. Her answer was the country, any country, has to be previously receptive to the message being projected. That no one can start from ground zero and orchestrate an authoritarian movement unless citizens in the country, some of them at least, are ready for it.

Probably the best example of this being Germany before Hitler (I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler). The seeds for being receptive to fascism were planted by the onerous terms Germany was forced to submit to after WW I.

So what was happening here that allowed for the sublimated acceptance of, if not desire for, autocracy to bubble to the surface? Technological advances bringing about economic instability? The "browning" of the country causing anxiety among certain factions?

Or is Rachel's theory just wrong?

Quotes or paraphrasing are supposed to be supported by:



.

 

[scruffy]

I don't think there is any question one of the fears on the part of the white majority Trump exploited is the loss of dominance by whites. And concern of further erosion of said dominance.

Now you're a racist too?

Everyone's a fucking racist.

Don't get near me with that bullshit, I'll tear you a new one.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The seeds of todays Republicans were planted by Rush Limbaugh in the late 80s

The compost of failed white liberalism was its fertile earth.